{"id":34608,"date":"2024-02-23T00:01:17","date_gmt":"2024-02-23T05:01:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=34608"},"modified":"2025-01-10T11:32:20","modified_gmt":"2025-01-10T16:32:20","slug":"bayer-monsanto-in-roundup-glyphosate-case-stung-with-largest-multi-billion-dollar-jury-award-turns-to-state-houses-to-stop-litigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2024\/02\/bayer-monsanto-in-roundup-glyphosate-case-stung-with-largest-multi-billion-dollar-jury-award-turns-to-state-houses-to-stop-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"Bayer\/Monsanto in Roundup\/Glyphosate Case Stung with Largest Multi-Billion Dollar Jury Award, Asks States to Stop Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"

(<\/span>Beyond Pesticides,<\/span><\/i> February 23, 2024) The latest string of billion-dollar plaintiff judgments against Bayer\/Monsanto, the maker of Roundup™ with active ingredient glyphosate, does not yet signal a capitulation by Bayer or a win for public health or the environment in the United States. A <\/span>jury award of $2.25 billion<\/span><\/a>, the largest to-date, was handed down in Philadelphia in January. As <\/span>Beyond Pesticides <\/span>reported previously<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Monsanto<\/span><\/a> has a <\/span>long history<\/span><\/a> of challenging scientific findings on <\/span>Roundup\/glyphosate<\/span><\/a> and evidence of <\/span>harm<\/span><\/a> to <\/span>human health<\/span><\/a>, the <\/span>environment<\/span><\/a>, and <\/span>crops<\/span><\/a> themselves (see resistant super weeds <\/span>here<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>here<\/span><\/a>), as it seeks to <\/span>avoid liability claims<\/span><\/a> by those suffering from cancer.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Bayer Looking to State Legislatures for Protection from Lawsuits\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

As result of its failure in quash lawsuits, Bayer has moved its case to state legislatures, where it is seeking the adoption of statutes that preempt liability claims by damaged parties.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As <\/span>reported<\/span><\/a> by Beyond Pesticides, a rash of state legislation has been introduced in Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, and Florida, which would block plaintiff liability claims when pesticide products, like Roundup, cause harm. The chemical industry pushes the notion that the registration of its pesticide products with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a mark of safety that should shield it from liability. The industry want immunity from legal redress for the \u201cfailure to warn\u201d those harmed from exposure to its products.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Successful verdicts against Bayer\/Monsanto are generally based on the \u201cfailure to warn\u201d principle and have withstood judicial appeals, including before the U.S. Supreme Court twice in the last couple of years. While Bayer\u00a0announced a reformulation<\/a> of its residential Roundup product would remove glyphosate by January 2023, its widespread agricultural and public landscaping uses continue (ed. note: it is unclear whether Bayer has removed glyphosate from retail Roundup formulations).\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>Advocates point out that the proposed state legislation to limit liability, if passed into law, would release from liability all pesticide manufacturers responsibility for adverse effects associated with labeled product use. Tort liability claims rest on the manufacturers\u2019 \u201cfailure to warn\u201d consumers that when the company\u2019s pesticide products are used as labeled and directed they may cause harm, such as <\/span>non-Hodgkin lymphoma<\/span><\/a> in the case of glyphosate-based Roundup.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Regulatory Failures Increase Need for Lawsuits Against Manufacturers\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

In December, f<\/span>armworker organizations and <\/span>Beyond Pesticides<\/span><\/a>, represented by the Center for Food Safety, filed a\u202f<\/span>petition<\/span><\/b><\/a>\u202fwith EPA urging the agency to remove glyphosate from the market after having won a 2022 court decision forcing EPA to redo its science evaluation.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

That 2022 court decision in the\u202f<\/span>Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled<\/a>\u202fthat EPA\u2019s 2020 approval of glyphosate was \u202funlawful.<\/a> The court voided EPA\u2019s\u202f\u201cinterim registration review\u201d decision approving the continued use of glyphosate, issued in early 2020<\/a>. \u201cEPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act<\/i> (ESA),\u201d the court wrote\u202fin its opinion.<\/a> At the time of the decision, Beyond Pesticides said: “EPA’s failure to act on the science, as detailed in the litigation, has real-world adverse health consequences for farmworkers, the public, and ecosystems. Because of this lawsuit, the agency’s obstruction of the regulatory process will not be allowed to stand, and EPA should start shifting food production to available alternative non- and less-toxic practices and materials that meet its statutory duty.” As reported by the Center for Food Safety, counsel in the case, \u201c<\/span>[T]he court struck down, or vacated the human health assessment. The court also required that EPA redo and\/or finish all remaining glyphosate determinations by an October 2022 deadline, or within four months. This includes a redone ecological toxicity assessment, a redone costs analysis of impacts to farmers from pesticide harms, as well as all Endangered Species analysis and mitigation.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Failure to Warn\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

A <\/span>Pesticides and You<\/span><\/i> article (2005) by <\/span>H. Bishop Dansby<\/span><\/a> explains the U.S. Supreme Court decision on \u201cfailure to warn\u201d in <\/span>Bates<\/span><\/i><\/a> v. Dow Agrosciences<\/span><\/i><\/a> (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 03-388, 2005), which includes the following:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n